WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Monday, June 20, 2011

SCALIA REVEALED

Lost in the uproar of the Supreme Court's decision on prison over crowding in California

(Brown v. Plata) was Judge Scalia's total abandonment of his philosophy of limited, rational, and contextual jurisprudence. In its place was Scalia revealed- a blatant statist who screams loudly when his ox is gored. To wit:

The Scalia that Justice Scalia wants the world to see is a Judge bound by strict interpretation of facts and law. Personal feelings, petty prejudices and biases, or even the "feel-good" jurisprudence of compassion, as averred by Justice Sotomayor in her speeches before her confirmation hearing, fall to Scalia's interpretation of the cold hard facts of the original meaning of the text of the Constitution or the law. The result be damned (innocent people in jail for example) so long as the Judge narrowly and strictly interprets the context of the law.

But then comes along a case that just sends poor Nino over the edge and he abandons it all in his dissent in Brown:

There comes before us, now and then, a case whose proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, rather than vice versa.

To translate- "every now and then" something just "seems" to be the right result and therefore the Judge's job is to twist the law to reach "the correct" result.

But Rumpole wants to know: "Who or what determines what is the "correct" result?" Activist/sentimental/compassionate judges? Apparently so, as long as the sentiment/compassion yields the result Scalia agrees with.

How do we know that Scalia thinks that sometimes the "right result" must be achieved even when it requires twisting and bending the law by an activist judge? He says so himself!

"One would think that, before allowing the decree of a federal district court to release 46,000 convicted felons, this Court would bend every effort to read the law in such a way as to avoid that outrageous result."

Rumpole says: if you ever doubted that Scalia prays before the altar of the ends justifying the means, just keep re-reading that sentence.

Once again, just so there's no mistake about this- when Scalia's ox is gored he has no problem becoming an activist Judge interpreting a "living Constitution" so long as the twisting and bending and interpreting "avoids""an outrageous result."

And what is "an outrageous result?" In Scalia's mind it is apparently releasing healthy and muscle bound males into society. When this happens we believe you will find Nino stacking chairs against the doors to his chambers so that the fairer sex are not ravaged by men "with intimidating muscles." Who knew the Justice was so easily scared? We guess he flips quickly through the cable channels that carry professional wrestling and that you will not find him at the Supreme Court gym pushing out another set of "lats" "pecs" or "tri's".

"Most of them will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym."

In Scalia's world, a prison system that stands by while its inmates die of untreated hypertension or that leaves its mentally ill inmates in puddles of feces and urine is a mere inconvenience in light of the fearsome effect of incarceration on an inmate's musculature system. For Scalia its all about not being unlucky enough to be convicted, because your case (or your actual innocence even if facing execution) is something to be twisted and turned by the whims of activist judges seeking to avoid scary results.

Read what you want into Nino's dissent in Brown, just don't ever argue to us again that he is a man driven by an adherence to a judicial philosophy regardless of the results, because that just ain't so.

The emperor has no clothes and the release of muscle bound inmates so scares Scalia that he is willing to do anything to prevent it, even abandon his veneer of philosophical jurist.

As reported in several locations now, here are the names of those that have applied for consideration to be your next Federal District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida. They will be interviewed by the JNC on July 25, 2011.

The narrowed field will be sent North to Washington DC. Based on previous nominations made by BHO, one of them might actually become a Federal Judge sometime during the Bachmann administration.

J/Jerald Bagley

J/Beatrice Butchko

J/Marina Garcia Wood

Brian Gilchrist(Managing Partner of a large Orlando firm - he has a Board Certification in Intellectual Property Law).

Bagley is the most bias judge that one could try a case infront of. As a criminal defense attorney, he is a horrible draw. He is also intellectually challenged. Moreover, he has never practiced in the Federal Courts. Why does the FJNC insist on sending him up time and time again?

You bottom feeding criminal lawyer maggots are the lowest form of legal life possible..........Bagley intellectually challenged ? ......he is one of our finest judges ! Courteous well read and informed

1048pm I spent 21 months in front on Judge Bagley in the 1990s. He gave good trials. He DID hold lawyers to a demanding standard, esspecially the State. He did sentence on the high end, but not all got the Max. But, He was courteous, polite considerate and I thought Fair overall.I enjoyed being in his division as a APD.DS

And you ignore the fact that he backs up his argument with facts, that he does not "bend" the law to go to his result, rather that the majority bends the law in such a way as to obfuscate and undermine the Constitutional limitations placed on federal judges. Please read the entire opinion next time, not just the opening paragraph.